Functions and jurisdiction of the AAT
Functions and Jurisdiction of the AAT
What is the AAT?
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) is an independent statutory body in Australia that reviews administrative decisions made by Australian Government ministers, departments, and agencies. Its primary function is to provide an accessible, fair, and informal way to resolve disputes over administrative decisions without the need for court proceedings.
Functions of the AAT
Review Administrative Decisions:
The AAT reviews decisions made by government officials to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and fair. It can affirm, vary, or set aside the original decision and substitute its own decision.
Provide a Fair Hearing:
The AAT offers a less formal, less costly, and more efficient alternative to courts. It allows parties to present their case without strict rules of evidence.
Interpret and Apply Law:
The AAT interprets relevant laws and regulations in reviewing decisions and ensures decisions comply with legislative intent.
Promote Administrative Justice:
The AAT enhances government accountability by scrutinizing decisions and ensuring administrative fairness.
Jurisdiction of the AAT
The AAT’s jurisdiction is defined by statute and it varies depending on the legislation under which a reviewable decision is made. Common areas include:
Immigration and citizenship decisions
Social security and welfare benefits
Taxation decisions
Veterans’ affairs decisions
Freedom of information requests
Child support and family assistance
Case Law Explaining Functions and Jurisdiction of the AAT
1. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts:
The Minister refused a visa application on character grounds. The applicant sought review by the AAT, which allowed the visa.
Importance:
The High Court emphasized the role of the AAT as a merits review body, meaning it can consider the facts, law, and policy afresh, rather than just the legality of the decision. It confirmed the AAT’s jurisdiction to substitute its own decision and not be confined to the decision-making process of the original decision-maker.
Takeaway:
The AAT performs a de novo review — it can reconsider all aspects and reach its own conclusion.
2. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Mr. Lam’s visa was cancelled, and he applied for AAT review. The case dealt with procedural fairness during the AAT process.
Importance:
The High Court held that the AAT must observe the principles of procedural fairness (natural justice) when reviewing decisions. The AAT must give a fair hearing and allow affected parties to respond to adverse material.
Takeaway:
The AAT must conduct reviews fairly and transparently, ensuring parties can present their case properly.
3. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Kioa’s visa was cancelled without the chance to respond to adverse information.
Importance:
Although not directly about the AAT, this case is pivotal because it established procedural fairness principles that the AAT must follow. The decision reinforced that affected individuals have the right to be heard before an adverse decision is made.
Takeaway:
The AAT, when conducting reviews, must ensure procedural fairness, giving applicants a chance to respond.
4. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82
Facts:
This case involved the Refugee Review Tribunal (similar in nature to AAT), focusing on the scope of its jurisdiction and powers to hear fresh evidence.
Importance:
The High Court confirmed that tribunals like the AAT have broad powers to reconsider the facts, including new evidence, to make a correct and preferable decision.
Takeaway:
The AAT’s jurisdiction is broad, allowing it to receive new material and reassess decisions fully.
5. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Facts:
This case involved the scope of review and the tribunal’s role in examining administrative decisions.
Importance:
The High Court ruled that tribunals like the AAT are not bound by strict legal procedures but must act according to law and fairness, highlighting the tribunal’s flexibility but accountability.
Takeaway:
The AAT operates with procedural flexibility but must remain within the law and ensure fairness.
6. Re Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57
Facts:
Miah’s visa cancellation was reviewed by the AAT.
Importance:
The High Court confirmed the AAT's power to assess discretionary decisions, emphasizing that the AAT must consider all relevant factors and disregard irrelevant considerations when reviewing decisions.
Takeaway:
The AAT’s jurisdiction includes examining the exercise of discretion and ensuring decisions are based on proper considerations.
7. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Facts:
The case involved a privative clause that attempted to restrict judicial review.
Importance:
The High Court held that certain matters are beyond the AAT’s jurisdiction and reaffirmed that judicial review remains available for jurisdictional errors.
Takeaway:
The AAT cannot review jurisdictional errors, which remain subject to judicial review by courts.
Summary
| Function/Jurisdiction Aspect | Explanation | Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|
| Merits review | The AAT reconsiders the facts and law anew | Minister for Immigration v SZMDS |
| Procedural fairness | The AAT must ensure natural justice | Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Lam |
| Fresh evidence | The AAT can receive and consider new evidence | Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala |
| Discretionary decisions | The AAT reviews the exercise of discretion | Re Minister for Immigration; Ex parte Miah |
| Procedural flexibility | The AAT is informal but must act fairly and lawfully | Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond |
| Limits of jurisdiction | Jurisdictional errors are outside AAT’s review powers | Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth |
RELATED Blog
0 comments